The One Minute Rational Argument for Gay Marriage

Chip Joyce eloquently makes the argument for homosexuals being legally allowed to marry:

Marriage has been defined as heterosexual only because of religion. Period.

It is obvious to honest people who don’t live in complete seclusion, that gay couples exist with the exact same relationship as married people have, and they need and deserve the same legal recognition and protection.

The definition of marriage has been wrong because of religious bigotry. The concept of marriage applies to gay couples too, and the definition needs to be corrected to accurately refer to the concept.

It’s like this: a bad definition of swans said they are white, and then there was a black one. The concept “swan” is the same, regardless, and the definition is demonstrably flawed. In the same way, there is no reason for “man and wife” to be in the definition of “marriage” any more than the color white be in the definition of “swan.” “Man and wife” and “white” are non-essential and should be omitted. Marriage is a type of relationship between two consenting adults.

  • GetIronic

    “…and they need and deserve the same legal recognition and protection.”

    What protection does that afford them?

    Marriage is not a type of relationship between two consenting adults. It is a relationship between the state and the wedded, where the state can change the rules at any time.

    Whatever protections you think you are getting, you are also getting crippling restrictions. The rational course of action is to mitigate the “loss” of protections by finding an alternative means to secure the desired benefits.

    This kind of push for “equal rights” should be going in the exact opposite direction: One should not guide homosexuals towards the realm of sacrifice from which they are now relatively free, one should guide heterosexuals out of the modern, inherently sacrificial marriage trap and into a future of being able to write their own “marriage” contracts, from scratch — with no added state obligations, except where unspecified.

    • Cass Michael

      AGREED! Blake Fillipi said this at the Rhode Island Same Sex Marriage debates a couple months ago.

      • getironic

        Objectivists clinging to “marriage” remind me of the situation where a millionaire asked Ayn Rand to make her philosophy more palatable to the mysticism status quo. What was her answer?

        It probably feels more palatable to oneself; more comforting and safe to answer otherwise; the same comfort conservatives feel from their belief in God.

        Intrinsicism can be very tempting, especially when one’s conditioning is “that’s the way it’s always been.”. Chip Joyce is committing the same error that Ron Pisaturo and Edward Cline have made, even though they superficially seem to hold contrary positions. They hold the same premise of accepting state marriage as a given good, with the only debate to be over who is eligible to participate.

        It’s similar being outraged that only men are eligible for selective service, so women should get an equal cut of the action too. But is the current situation wrong or right only because some group is excluded or included from the game of sacrifice…or what?

        • Golden Dollar

          Marriage is a contract. Just like when you go into business with a partner or partners, you register your contract with the local courts. That way, when disputes arise, it is easy for courts to arbitrate them. That’s it.

          True, there are some major flaws, especially those sections of marriage law which heavily favor women as if they are still reliant on men to be the primary bread winner. Custody battles over children make divorce even uglier (again, usually with an unfair advantage to women) but that doesn’t mean that two people who want to willingly enter into such a contract and register it with the courts should not be able to do so.

          • getironic

            Yes, it is a contract. And I criticize it as the heavily regulated, corrupt contract that it is. So much of the contract is set in stone by the state from the start, and state has the power to change your obligations at any time.

            I never said that people should be barred from entering into that contract if they want to. Go ahead. Go ahead and sign on the dotted line to be a crash test dummy. That’s your own prerogative. Just because something is a “contract” doesn’t make it good. Just because something is “consensual” doesn’t mean it’s moral.

            What you mention was never my criticism. Rather it’s that this “rational argument” does not take the principled view, in the full context of the facts.

          • Golden Dollar

            I recommend that you never get married.

          • getironic

            And I recommend that you focus on making sensible counter-arguments instead of trying to imply I don’t have the facts in order and that my opinion is merely a matter of personal preference.

          • Golden Dollar

            Your opinion is merely a matter of personal preference. You are dropping context. For some (even, many) people, marriage is a fine option in a broad array of contexts. Apparently, that is not the case for you. So, I recommend avoiding marriage.

  • Ron Pisaturo

    I argue that ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are indeed essential elements of the concept ‘marriage’:

  • Aykka

    not an eloquent argument. period.

  • THIAH_

    So the argument goes that because you disagree with the definition you demand that it be changed. How very despotic of you.

  • William Xucla

    Ayn Rand would have vehemently DISAGREED with you about gay marriage: she viewed marriage as a contract for the protection of children; she viewed homosexuality as highly immoral, because it was a negation of metaphysical reality[look at your bodies]; Ayn Rand worshipped reality and man’s mind…anything that contradicted that was immoral and therefore EVIL.

    • Cass Michael

      Singing is therefore a negation of metaphysical reality, because the human mouth was built for eating.

  • Ian Holm

    This isn’t a rational argument at all. Words have definitions and the definition of marriage is the union between a man and a woman. I agree gay couples should have the same legal protections as married couples, but you can’t call it marriage because it isn’t marriage.

    • Cass Michael

      then change the definition. Words have definitions, but only because humans gave them those definitions. Besides, we don’t know if the definitions infused into the word “marriage”, by its creators, were dependent on the fact that it had to be “man and woman”, or if it referred to “two partners joining together”

  • stone7

    The definition of marriage has been wrong because of religious bigotry. — quote

    If this is true, then what does wife, husband, mother, father and all concepts regarding marriage mean? All these concepts will be obliterated if a new gender is invented and pretended to be valid.

    Who’s your daddy? Take your pick! It’s crazy. And it does matter.

    There’s even talk now about letting people choose which restroom based on their gender identity. If you cannot see the mockery, you are hopelessly lost. And what you are doing is not thinking.

    I’m absolutely for homosexuals being allowed to join legally.

    But I’m absolutely against concept destruction.

    And for that matter, I don’t want to have to utter a paragraph each time I say wife, husband, mother, father and all the associated concepts I haven’t thought of.

    The leftist dreamworld has become so tiresome and annoying. When will it be enough? Only when America and classic liberalism is destroyed or so confused and broken that it doesn’t matter. And then what will the left have won? Only what they’ve ever won, death and misery.

    Then what? America will have to be reinvented again. Lefty is not so much evil as he is annoying. And that’s kinda worse.

    • Cass Michael

      If leftists are only annoying, not evil, then why fight them?

      the answer is: you have a wife and a wife, husband and a husband, father and father, or mother and mother.

    • albeit

      Name one place where these terms have been obliterated. As if using the word precipitation caused us to forget what snow is.

      Children raised in gay families still have two parents, a biological mother and father. I have two married male friends raising a child together. Its an open adoption, arrangement after the death of the biological father. That child will know who his mother is and will be able to contact whenever he wishes.

  • Churchill4President

    Society has a vested interest in it’s propagation. Society can only reproduce by the union of a man and a women. The highest calling in society is marriage because married couples take on the vital task of creating new people. The state should be promoting and protecting traditional marriage for those reasons. Successful thriving societies that promote traditional marriage survive. Societies that do not promote marriage and instead promote promiscuity and homosexuality go extinct. Case closed. (Note: I didn’t mention religion once).

    • Cass Michael

      homosexuals will already not produce children even if not given legal right to marry (or at least not suffer discrimination). You think not allowing gays the same rights as straights will stop them from not having sex with opposite sex people, which they’re already doing?

    • Cass Michael

      Furthermore, you don’t have to be married to create new people.

    • albeit

      Society does not exist. Only individuals exist. Our rights are for individuals to exercise, not the state.

      When people cohabitate and/or raise children together, the need for contracts arises. The state should not bless arrangements for just one group of people and deny that to a minority, while charging everyone the same taxes.

      Its unfair. It is not equality before the law. And there is no vested interest, even for an imaginary “society”, as gay people bring children in the world too.

  • Ricky Soliai

    One word rational argument AGAINST gay marriage…”EXTINCTION!”

    • Golden Dollar

      For some of us, yes, hopefully.

  • Kenneth James Abbott

    A “rational” argument generally does not begin with a blatant falsehood.